But most non-photographers don't look at a print and search for the flaws. This is a weird quirk among photographers I suppose due to the technical nature of the medium, wanting to compare ones own skills to a master and be able to say "look his print has the same flaws mine have". Sometimes I think that folks think a perfect, "sterile" print with no flaws in the technical aspects is the ultimate in photography. We should strive for the best possible print but obviously Weston and Adams were not obsessive about it and it has not hurt their reputations.

It is when we stand back and look at the master's print at a normal viewing distance should we make comparisons. At that distance it is not quite so easy to say his work is just like mine. At a normal viewing distance it is the image as a whole that we see not the technical aspects of the image.

Well said! (As I recall, I did have my nose up against the Ansel print to find the lint).

As photographers it is easy to get ones nose up to a print and find the flaws and most prints will have them unless the negative is "cleaned" digitally and an inkjet made. And even then I have seen minor flaws of banding if one looks close enough.

I understand all this .. but don't make the mistake that I value technical perfection over all else - I don't. In fact, I see the VALUE of what others may consider to be "flaws" (see" "blown highlight" discussion) - I think a little more flexibly than *some* others do.

What I wrote about was a comparison between the "original print" and a printed reproduction.
We carry these images around in our memories... and when the actual, original image is different than our internal image, it is a shock. When the images printed in books differ so intensely, it is even a greater shock.

There really is no way to discuss this intelligently without "at hand" copies of both the original print and the reproduction.

[QUOTE=Ed Sukach]We carry these images around in our memories... and when the actual, original image is different than our internal image, it is a shock. When the images printed in books differ so intensely, it is even a greater shock.[QUOTE]

When Ansel Adams oversaw the reproduction of his prints for the New York Graphic Society calendars, he said the prints looked nearly as good in reproduction as in the originals. In the absence of originals, I treasure those reproductions. However, there are times when such technique is an insignificant factor. Consider the Robert Capa photo taken on Omaha Beach during the Normandy invasion. Technically it is little, if any, better than many Holga images. It conveyed a message to the viewers of that time that technical perfection would have little helped. Too much technical perfection would have lost the feeling of the occasion.

. Consider the Robert Capa photo taken on Omaha Beach during the Normandy invasion. Technically it is little, if any, better than many Holga images. It conveyed a message to the viewers of that time that technical perfection would have little helped. Too much technical perfection would have lost the feeling of the occasion.

Also absolutely true. The idea of appropriate quality is an interesting one.

My (career) background being Photojournalism and my personal ethic cleaving to "The Foundview", there are no "flaws" in my images if I accurately captured the event or scene.
What distresses me most is no-one seems to appreciate straight out Photojournalism these days, their critiques harshly favoring the more pretentious, more "artsy" output.

I am reminded though that prize winning PJ images have and do tell stories, as opposed to the banal subjects of most photographic images, images that even with good captions say absolutely nothing.

When looking at old films and more importantly old photographs I often see dust/dirt/scratches/broken plates/missing emulsion (i.e. the Atget Paris book). Upon seeing things like this I am usually of the feeling that it would be perfectly acceptable in my own work if it is being accepted by myself when viewing a book/movie or an actual print in a museum.

With this being said I do show prints that have defects, though, if when making a print I have the ability to cure the problem (dust/hair that can be removed) I will. An image with dust/scratches in the actual negative that cannot be fixed will still be printed and shown as that is how the negative actually looks.. I will always know of the defect and will regret it having happened though knowing the image itself is more important than the 0.1% of the photograph which is flawed I will still feel as if I have created a succesful photograph.

I am a perfectionist and strive to do the best work I can.. If something can be cleaned to solve an issue an attempt will be made but as I mentioned, if something with scratches and flaws is good enough to be in a museum collection or put onto DVD than it seems my flaws and errors will be perfectly acceptable..

As a side note..

I have been unimpressed by Ansel Adams prints as well.. Both behind glass and seen just mat'd right in front of me I will always prefer the ones I've seen in a book..

"Where is beauty? Where I must will with my whole Will; where I will love and perish, that an image may not remain merely an image."

My (career) background being Photojournalism and my personal ethic cleaving to "The Foundview", there are no "flaws" in my images if I accurately captured the event or scene.
What distresses me most is no-one seems to appreciate straight out Photojournalism these days, their critiques harshly favoring the more pretentious, more "artsy" output.

I am reminded though that prize winning PJ images have and do tell stories, as opposed to the banal subjects of most photographic images, images that even with good captions say absolutely nothing.

Ed Greene, A Clinton Hill (Brooklyn, NY) PJ

If it makes you feel any better, every photography book that I own is all PJ & Street photos. Not a single 'Fine Art' book in the lot. Every print I've ever purchased has been by an anonymous photographer. Interesting PJ type images that I've found deep within boxes of prints at antique stores.